1. Of course they will exist when he talks to Queen Christine, the legislature and the partisan city council and they raise taxes even more.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 23, 2006 09:39 AM

2. There's a guy over on HA, who uses the moniker Roger Rabbit, who says Seattle and King County residents' pay for just about everything in the state. He says everyone is a FREELOADER on King County's nickel.

Well, if that's true, this tunnel idea sounds like another thing they should pay for. After, us barbarians in Pierce County are going to have to pay a toll for the new Narrows Bridge.

Posted by: Libertarian on June 23, 2006 10:01 AM

3. I like this "rebate on sales tax" concept.

So, with all these rebates going around, who is paying the freight? It is just a convenient way to circumvent the voters.

Safeco Field and the bajillion of other venues- Lynnwood, Everett, Bellingham?, Bellevue? and Richland?- were all recipients of these giveaways.

NASCAR is also going to get rebates for the new roads and stadium.

Again, who is going to pay for all these rebates? Especially when Sound Transit grabs more and more of my money.

Posted by: swatter on June 23, 2006 10:09 AM

4. "assumes funding sources that don't exist."
I hate when they do that.

Wherever you live, hold onto your wallet!

Posted by: Misty on June 23, 2006 10:12 AM

5. The one I find most interesting:

$176 million in sales-tax rebate. This means all the sales tax on materials and labor for the project would be forgiven, assuming the State Legislature agrees, and the lost taxes would be credited to the project.

Sooooo....the city of Seattle elicits the best kept secret in transportation projects, that being the slush fund the state government uses every major transportation project for to fund all of their little pet projects in the general fund. Where's our sales tax rebate on the rest of the $9 billion in projects we're paying for?

Posted by: Palouse on June 23, 2006 10:20 AM

6. Classic Nickels. This is EXACTLY what he did when he was head of finances at Sound Transit when it went to the ballot for approval in 1996. He said it was conservatively funded, and would be up and running WITH CAPITAL EXPENDITURES PAID FOR (and only some debt remaining) in 2006. Then after enough voters bought the line he was feeding them, the taxes balloon. Now we have absolutely zero idea how much ST is going to cost this region in taxes. These figures he is throwing around about where the revenue would come from for the tunnel are nothing more than wishful thinking. T

But wait, there's more. This schmuck's track record has an even blacker mark of dishonor. He was the jerk who signed the "Statement For" the monorail proposition put before voters in 2002. Those false rosy predictions about how there was ample money to pay for a monorail system also were woefully low.

He says he's been carefully counting his calories -- that should give you an idea of whether Nickels understates numbers or not.

Posted by: remember, or you're doomed to repeat it on June 23, 2006 10:30 AM

7. Nickles is a putz. The folks that voted him into office deserve what they get.

Funds? There are no funds....it's all BS.

This is one of the reasons I do not spend any of my $$$ in King County.

Posted by: Jack Burton on June 23, 2006 10:48 AM

8. Another classic case of way overestimating revenues and really, really underestimating expenses. Any one who believes this latest nonsense from Nickelbag either never took math or else studied the "reform" math.

Remember, little Joel Horn was all upset when the vehicle revenues for the monorail didn't match projections. He was absolutely convinced everyone in Seattle was registering their car outside of city limits. The same silly "logic" is going to apply to the "value" of the views that Mayor Dunderhead wants to tax.

Does anyone know if the group that did this latest "Yes, your higness, the money is there" study is the same one that did the Lake Union project for the Paul Allen contract?

Posted by: Burdabee on June 23, 2006 01:44 PM

9. Burdabee: The appointed lackeys charged with telling the State that there WILL be sufficient money for the SR 99 viaduct replacement/tunnel/whatever, and the SR 520 bridge and approaches, are the folks on C. Gregoire’s “expert review panel.” They are to issue a report on September 1 (of course it will say the financing package looks great).

In a baffling move, the Gov. appointed attorney Rodney Brown as the expert on law and public financing for this expert review panel. Rodney Brown would not know a public finance debacle if it bit him in the butt. This clown was tripping all over himself with enthusiasm after the Seattle Monorail Project ballot measure passed – see below. He thought SMP was financed extremely well, and in short order there would be monorails whooshing over our region.

Given the track records of Nickels and Brown, we can be sure that the financing of these megaprojects will be a financial train wreck far worse than the abject disaster that is Seattle Monorail.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Guest columnists
Fulfilling the vision of the Seattle monorail

By Judith Runstad, Steve Williamson and Rodney Brown
Special to The Times

Search web archive


IN 18 months, the Seattle Monorail Project will break ground on its new 14-mile Green Line. It will be the first leg of a system that will provide 69,000 trips a day from Ballard and West Seattle to downtown, tying together some of the city's most important destinations, such as KeyArena, Belltown, downtown, the Pike Place Market, King Street Station, Safeco Field and Seahawks Stadium.

Monorail construction will generate more than 2,100 jobs per year for five years and the project will create a cost-effective alternative to traffic congestion.

The vote on the Seattle Monorail Project was a close vote. But now all of us, inside and outside of government, have a shared responsibility to work to overcome public cynicism about our government's ability to perform. It is time for all of us to prove to our voters that we are worthy stewards of their trust.

Much is riding on the success of the Seattle Monorail Project, and its success depends on the actions of its staff and board, the City Council and the state Legislature. We are writing to urge that we each do our part to keep the project on time and within budget. If we all work together, we can avoid the pitfalls of the past.

• We urge the Legislature to clarify the monorail's authorizing legislation to do what the voters approved.

Seattle's measure imposed a tax and states that the monorail must honor any outstanding financial obligations should voters choose to stop the project in the future. The Legislature is being asked to make the authorizing language consistent and close the tax-evasion loophole for those residents who try to avoid paying taxes by registering their cars outside the city. These minor changes could save taxpayers $100 million to $400 million in interest costs over the life of the bonds.

• We urge the Seattle City Council to deliver timely and thorough decisions for the project.

Last year, the council showed leadership in providing thoughtful and timely decisions that strengthened the planning for the Seattle monorail. There are a number of agreements between the city and the monorail that need to be complete this year. The city's own risk analysis estimates that each month of delay costs at least $3 million in increased costs. The council must find the balance between its own due diligence and the voters' desire to have the monorail stay on schedule.

• We urge the staff and board of the monorail to keep their eye on the ball.

The project has made great progress to date. They are charged with an ambitious schedule and must comply with built-in accountability mechanisms to assure that the system breaks even by 2020 — a standard set by the current monorail as well as Vancouver's SkyTrain. We are confident this goal can be met, but it will require creativity and discipline, prudence and urgency.

There are many difficult decisions ahead, but a successful monorail will be a true asset to our city.

Those who want the public to support other transportation initiatives must understand that the public will be reluctant to vote for additional transportation investments if the project does not succeed. It will move people, create jobs and support our environment. And it will do it in a way that is uniquely Seattle.

In December 2007, the first section of the Green Line will be in full service. We all share the challenge to step up to fulfill the vision of the best possible monorail system for our city. We are all responsible for the success of the monorail.

Judith Runstad co-chairs the Washington Competitiveness Council and is of counsel to Foster, Pepper & Shefelman. The Seattle law firm is doing work on the monorail project's environmental-impact statement. Steve Williamson is executive secretary/treasurer of the King County Labor Council. Rodney Brown is an environmental attorney and was a member of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation. He was the principal author of Washington's Superfund law and the Model Toxics Control Act.

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company

Posted by: Disaster in the Making on June 23, 2006 02:08 PM

10. Well, of course a $4 bill. tunnel will cost $12 billion to build, but it will cost Mayor Nickelanddimeyoutodeath very, very little (personally). All that money is merely a transference of some people's money to other people. Admittedly a lot of the money will have come from people making $30k a year to people making nice six digit incomes, but, hey, why quibble? Lots of construction jobs (can't be outsourced!), lots of attorneys, lots of civil servants. Look, $12 billion is going to get spent somewhere, why not let out elected officials determine where and to whom? Besides, in a tunnel you can honk your horn, which always makes 3 year olds giggle. Beep Beep!

Posted by: cliff on June 23, 2006 02:47 PM

11. Like Nickles ever "lost" the funding option, he has alsways looked at taking our money as the funding option....of course he found it...he believes that we should give all our money to him and he'd take care of us....we'd never need again. Let the utopia commence. Goverment knows best.

Posted by: Dengle on June 23, 2006 03:33 PM

12. i have a plan...look at the latest local business paper; apparently native amer. casinos are making record profits; great--after no internet gambling and smoking laws, i wonder why; they are building restaurants and hotels and golf courses; funny--why aren't they building regional private schools, state of art medical centers or water treatment plants to show their deep-rooted love for nature & Mother Earth? they can build a viaduct & have naming rights too; let's get some of this money spread around for the good of all; heck, we give them tax & ecological breaks on the taxpayer's dime;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 23, 2006 07:51 PM

13. Hey Jimmie, I like the way yous tinks, but hows about a little home cookin for the indiginous peoples. Toll booths on the publicly funded roads leading into the Sacred Casino and Smoke Shop, I'm tinking of a number, maybe $20 bucks a head or $50 bucks for a car full cut'em a break ya know. Set them up and start raking in the dough. Yous tinks the bums will pony up da tax revenues we need then? I dunno, but it would be fun to watch dems guys really sweat in da sweat lodge if ya knows what I mean.

Posted by: Huh? on June 23, 2006 08:26 PM

14. Hate to break this to you, Palouse, but the Legislature does not fund transportation projects, pet or otherwise, from the General Fund. The sales tax rebate Nickels is asking for would, however, be money from the General Fund. The chances the Legislature would agree to that seem to me between slim and none.

Posted by: stu on June 24, 2006 12:17 AM

15. Transportation projects can and do come from the general fund. It's the other way around. Gas taxes can't be spent on things that aren't 'transportation'. That would roughly include the ferry system, roads, sidewalks, shrubberies along I-405, etc. It does not include subsidising the buses (unless you consider HOV lanes a bus subsidy like I do.) What is a big problem is that the tranportation department must pay sales tax on what they purchase. This is the legislature's way of skimming a portion of the gas tax into the general fund and violating the spirit of the constitution.

The other big problem with DOT is the 'prevailing wage' law that our legislature passed at the behest of the unions. The DOT can't hire contractors that don't pay their employess some minimum wage. The state shouldn't give a whit about what a contractor pays its employess. It should care about quality and cost. Nothing else. That tunnel (and the rest of our roads) might cost half what they do except for this law.

Posted by: mykela on June 24, 2006 09:11 AM

16. Yes stu...see the mykela post who explains the general (slush) fund that comes from transportation projects.

Posted by: Palouse on June 26, 2006 07:48 AM

17. The DOT, mayor and city council have a credibility problem. It appears that they have politicized the cost estimates for replacing the Viaduct and a tunnel alternative. The scope of the viaduct replacement is enlarged and its cost overstated. Conversely, the tunnel cost is vastly understated. Before a vote is taken on which alternative to implement, the public is entitled to have an independent expert analyze the cost estimates. Unfortunately, the culprits in this process will appoint a friendly reviewer. The tunnel has the potential to drawf Boston's Big Dig fiasco.

If I owned a business in Seattle that was dependent upon road based transportation, I would move to the eastside of the county or elsewhere. The it appears that Seattle is doomed to several years of overwhelming congestion unless the viaduct is reapired rather than replaced.

Posted by: Paddy on June 26, 2006 10:30 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?